Mr. Schmidt goes to Washington

Google is arguably the world’s most successful Internet company, and that success — and maybe what the company did to get so far, so fast — will earn it an uncomfortable spot in the hot seat Wednesday.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee will grill Eric Schmidt, Google’s executive chairman and former CEO, on the company’s business practices to try to figure out whether the company is using its dominance to squeeze out competitors — just as antitrust regulators argued Microsoft was doing more than a decade ago.

Story Continued Below

“We aim to provide relevant answers as quickly as possible, and our product innovation and engineering talent deliver results that we believe users like, in a world where the competition is only one click away,” Schmidt plans to say, according to an advance copy of testimony obtained by POLITICO.

It’s the first time Google will have to publicly respond to growing criticism that it’s simply too powerful, and the stakes are high. The Federal Trade Commission and the European Commission are already investigating the company’s business practices. Schmidt’s answers Wednesday may help determine whether Google will continue on its highflying business trajectory or have its wings clipped by government regulators.

Here are the six things to look for at Wednesday’s hearing.

What’s the political impact of the hearing?

The hearing is an important milestone for Google. If Google comes through the hearing with flying colors, it could call into question the need for immediate antitrust action.

But if lawmakers don’t seem satisfied with the answers to their questions about whether Google is abusing its search dominance, it could give more political cover for the Federal Trade Commission to ramp up its investigation of the company or give federal antitrust enforcers reason to slap Google with an antitrust lawsuit.

Google’s imperative will be to demonstrate that it’s doing what consumers want while allaying worries that its conduct is actually harming consumers.

That could be difficult to gauge from one hearing.

“Even if you have bias, showing the actual harm is really very difficult,” said Eric Clemons, a University of Pennsylvania professor of information management who has received support from Microsoft. “Bias and harm are not equivalent.”

Will this be like Microsoft’s 1998 hearing?

Comparisons with Microsoft’s own congressional grilling 13 years ago are inevitable. Facing lawmakers’ questions about its dominance in the software sector, Microsoft’s then-CEO, Bill Gates, was at times defensive. He testified on the same panel as some of his toughest critics. Two months later, the Justice Department slammed the company with an antitrust suit.

The suit weighed down Microsoft for years, allowing new upstarts — Google, in particular — to gain a foothold in the next wave of technology applications, such as search advertising, mobile operating systems and Web-based tools such as Google Docs.

Google’s success in those areas is strikingly similar to Microsoft’s former glory. About two-thirds of U.S. Internet searches go through Google, according to ComScore. On mobile phones, that share is closer to 97 percent, according to StatCounter. In 1998, Microsoft’s Windows operating-system software ran more than 90 percent of personal computers.

A decade ago, Charles “Rick” Rule, who was one of Microsoft’s attorneys during its antitrust battle, had argued against major government intervention in the fast-changing technology sector. Now Rule, still representing Microsoft, says Google should pay the piper.

“It’s very hard to look at the evidence and conclude that Google doesn’t have monopoly power,” Rule said this week. “That doesn’t mean it has violated the law or should be regulated … but it does mean that Google should acknowledge its responsibilities given its market share.”